THE FORM BOARD TEST 



BY 
REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 



A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Pennsylvania in partial fulfilment of the requirements 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



1915 



THE FORM BOARD TEST 



BY 

REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 



A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the 
University of Pennsylvania in partial fulfilment of the requirements 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



1913 



/ 

-r-^ 



Gin 
I'he Uaiversity 
JAM 9 1914 




TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Descriptive and Historical Sketch i 

Preliminary Studies 5 

Application to Retarded and Defective Children 13 

Study of the Time and Error Features 22f 

Standardization of the Form Board Test 44 

Appendix 53 



DESCRIPTIVE AND HISTORICAL SKETCH 

The form board has been used for several years, and clinical 
psychologists continue to regard it as one of their best general 
tests. It appeals to the child's interest, affording him a short and 
fascinating task which calls for his best effort, and it helps to 
free him from the fear and self-consciousness which often inter- 
fere seriously in a mental examination. At the same time the 
test gives the examiner a good general view of the child's men- 
tality and it usually indicates more or less clearly the nature of 
his defects. 




The Form Board. — The forms are designated by numbers as follows: 
I. Semi-circle. 2. Triangle. 3. Cross. 4. Elongated hexagon. 5. Oblong. 
6. Circle. 7. Square. 8. Flattened oval. 9. Star. 0. Lozenge. 



The form board is shown in the above figure. The ten geo- 
metrical figures, as nearly uniform in size as their variety of form 
will allow, are cut through an oak board 20 x 14 x }i inches. 
This oak board is glued to a soft wood board of the same length 
and breadth, ^ inches thick. The result is a thick board of 
moderate weight with a hard oak surface in which the ten forms 
appear as shallow holes or recesses. About the edge is placed 



2 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

an oak strip, i^ x ^ inches, fitting flush with the soft wood 
back and forming a ^ inch raised edge about the oak surface. 
Corresponding to the ten recesses are ten walnut blocks, % inch 
in thickness, each of which fits loosely into its corresponding 
recess. The thickness being more than twice the depth of the 
recesses the blocks can easily be grasped and removed. The board 
and the blocks are finished in their natural oak and walnut colors 
and the recesses are painted black. The whole is carefully fin- 
ished in order to give it an attractive appearance,' — an important 
feature in a mental testing device. This description applies to 
what may be called the standard form board, — the type now in 
most general use. 

History of the Form Board 

The first form boards were contrived for training purposes. 
Itard in his efforts to train the Wild Boy of Aveyron used as one 
of his devices a board two feet square upon which were pasted 
three pieces of brightly colored paper, — a red circle, a blue tri- 
angle, and a black square. Pieces of card board of the same 
forms and colors were to be matched with these by the boy. 
Other boards with various forms and colors were also used.^ 

Seguin constructed a number of form boards. Copies of 
some of them are still used at the Seguin School. One consists 
of an inch board about one foot square into the surface of 
which are cut four circular recesses a half inch deep and varying 
between an inch and three inches in diameter. Corresponding 
to these are four circular blocks one inch thick. Board and 
blocks are soft wood and are not stained or painted. Another 
Seguin board is of hard wood, is considerably larger than the 
kind just described and has a dozen variously shaped symmetri- 
cal forms. In a third kind the blocks are of light colored wood 
on one side and of dark colored wood on the other. The only 
form boards that Seguin himself made and used are in use at the 
Massachusetts Institution for the Feeble-Minded at Waverly. 
They are about two feet long and less than half as wide. The 

*Des Premiers Developments du Jeune Sauvage de L' Aveyron, p. 41. 



DESCRIPTIVE AND HISTORICAL SKETCH 3 

six recesses in each are arranged in a line. Boards and blocks are 
all of the same wood and color. Seguin conceived of a series of 
form boards graded as to difficulty and he had such a series 
planned and partly constructed. 

Bourneville recommended light form boards or trays- very like 
those used by Dr. Maria Montessori. Montessori is the first to 
apply form board devices to the training of normal children.^ 

The form board was first used as a testing device by Dr. 
Naomi Norsworthy. In her study of mental defectives^ she 
used as one of the tests a form board that had been constructed 
for practice curve studies by Dr. Joseph Hershey Bair.^ This 
board was smaller than the standard forni board already de- 
scribed, its blocks were provided with handles, and instead of the 
star and the cross it had a hexagon and an octagon. 

Dr. Henry H. Goddard increased the board to its present size, 
substituted the star and the cross, arranged the forms more 
compactly, reduced them to such sizes and proportions that no 
block could be set into a recess not its own, and dispensed with 
the handles. 

Professor Edwin B. Twitmyer adopted Goddard's arrangement 
and size of forms, but reversed their order, made the recesses shal- 
lower, used hard wood, contrasted the colors of board, blocks, 
and recesses, added the raised strip to the edge, and gave the 
whole a more attractive appearance. This is the kind of form 
board that was used in the present investigation.*^ 

Methods of Giving the Test 
Dr. Clara H. Town regards form perception as the primary- 
feature of the test and so uses the number of errors^ as the index 

^Assistance des Enfants Idiots et Degeneres, p. 233. Recherches Cliniques 
et Therapeutuques, vol. XXIV, p. xxv. 

'The Montessori Method (Tr. by Anne George), pp. 195 ff. 

*The Psychology of Mentally Deficient Children, pp. 25, 26. 

" The Practice Curve, p. 34. 

•Robert S. Woodworth (Science, n.s. XXXI :i7i), and William Healy and 
Grace M. Fernald (Tests for Practical Mental Classification) , have con- 
structed and used other good form boards. 

' By an error is meant an attempt to fit a block into a recess not its own. 



4 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

of a child's form board ability. She takes a record of the num- 
ber of errors made in each trial^ until the trial in which all of 
the blocks are replaced without error, or until she is convinced 
that the child cannot replace them. In addition she notes the 
rapidity of the work and certain other features, but her procedure 
is planned to give greatest prominence to errors. 

Goddard considers the amount of time required by the child 
for replacing the blocks as of prime importance. He gives three 
trials, and takes the time of the shortest of the three as the child's 
form board index. He also takes a record of the handling of 
the blocks and attaches some importance to the number of 
errors.^ 

Professor Lightner Witmer is most interested in the child's 
first attempts at the task. His procedure varies for different 
children, but he usually places the board before the child with 
no explanation except a mere statement as, "Let us see whether 
you can do this", or "Put the blocks in". Then he watches 
closely to catch the child's first reactions and to see how he at- 
tacks this new kind of problem. Successive trials are usually 
given and the method varied, the procedure depending on the 
way that the child reacts and the particular features of his men- 
tality on which the examiner desires more light. H the child 
takes the usual interest in the task, he is often allowed to con- 
tinue it while details quite apart from the general purpose of the 
test are studied. For instance after the blocks are in place the 
examiner may say in a low tone, "Now take them out", thus 
getting at the child's word-hearing ability. The record of the 
test as kept by Witmer usually consists of observations dictated 
v/hile the test is being given. 

These three methods are distinguished because they emphasize 
three different features of the form board test ; errors, time, and 
reaction to a new task. In each some attention is given to the 
features emphasized in the others, so they are not entirely distinct. 
Other methods are modifications of these three. 

' By a trial is meant the taking of all of the blocks from a pile and putting 
them into their recesses. 
"Training School, IX, 49-52. 



II 

PRELIMINARY STUDIES 

The purpose of the investigation reported in this monograph 
was to analyze certain features of the fonn board test psycho- 
logically, to determine upon the best method of applying it, and 
to work out a standard interpretation of its results. A long 
series of preliminary studies was necessary. Following a year's 
observation of the test in the Psychological Clinic of the Uni- 
versity of Pennsylvania the investigator applied it to some four 
hundred children and several dozen adults, using various modi- 
fications of the three methods mentioned in the preceding section. 
Interviews with Goddard, Town, Woodworth, Wallin, Mrs. Se- 
guin, and others who have used the test extensively, and con- 
ferences with the professors of psychology under whose direction 
the main investigation was to be carried on made possible a full 
and satisfactory interpretation of the results. These preliminary 
studies, besides giving a general orientation and opening up the 
various lines which would have to be followed out, yielded con- 
clusions on three points which had to be decided tentatively 
before the investigation could proceed. 

Position of Child^ Board, and Blocks 
The first of these conclusions has to do with the position of 
the child, the board, and the blocks at the beginning of a trial. 
The following arrangement was worked out. It was used 
throughout the later studies and proved to be entirely satis- 
factory. The form board lies horizontally on a table, its lower 
edge^ even with the edge of the table next to which the child 
stands. The table must be low eiiough so that he can lean well 
over the board and look down upon the center of it. Children 
readily adapt themselves to height within a reasonable range, so 
an adjustable table is not necessary. One of ordinary height 
and a kindergarten table suffice, most children under nine years 

^The lower edge is the edge next to the star recess. 



6 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

of age requiring the latter. If the table is too high, the child 
has to look across the board instead of down upon it and he 
cannot see the forms so well ; — an important point that is often 
neglected, many examiners having the board entirely too high 
for the child. The blocks should be placed in three piles on the 
table, next to the edge of the board on the side opposite the child, 
no block being in the pile nearest its own recess. If the child is 
in a position that enables him to look down upon the center 
of the board, he can easily reach the blocks piled in that way. 
Placing them at the right of the board as is often done, is of no 
advantage, and in that position they cannot be picked up with 
the left hand. Placing some at each end of the board is still 
worse for it offers the most possibilities for varying the diffi- 
culties of handling them. 

Kind of Form Board to be Used 

The second conclusion referred to the size of the board and 
the order of arrangement of the forms upon it. Some have 
suggested that the blocks of the standard form board are too 
large for small children. To test this a two-thirds sized model 
of the standard board was constructed. This board was tried 
with 15 six year old children, 28 five year olds, 18 four year 
olds, and 8 three year olds. Each child had two trials with the 
standard form board and two with the small one, half of each 
age taking them in the order, standard-small-standard-small and 
the other half taking them in the reverse order. The time re- 
quired for placing the blocks was found to be practically the same 
for the two boards. The small board has a slight advantage 
in that small children can reach the extreme corner recesses more 
easily, but this is perhaps more than offset by the finer co-ordin- 
ation required for fitting the small blocks into place. The small 
star was very difficult for the clumsy fingered little folk. The 
investigator and others who observed the work agreed that the 
regular sized blocks were grasped and handled with more cer- 
tainty than the small ones. It was not thought worth while to 
try a larger board for it was evident that small children would 



PRELIMINARY STUDIES 7 

have difficulty in reaching its corner recesses. The question of 
re-arrang-ing the forms on the board and of substituting other 
forms was also taken up. A board on which forms could be set 
in any order and turned at any angle was planned, but after 
experimenting with cardboard models it was decided that such 
a study would involve more than the present investigation should 
undertake; and further that the study of these details would 
probably contribute little to the efficiency of the device. It is 
obvious that the value of a test like this depends less on fine 
details of devices than on the method of using them and the 
interpretation of their results. It was therefore decided to 
proceed with the investigation using the standard form board. 

Preliminary Consideration of Method 
The third point which had to be decided tentatively before 
the investigation could proceed was as to which of the three 
methods should be the basis of the one used. Witmer's method, 
because it leaves the examiner free to fit the procedure to each 
individual case, brings out features of the child's mentality 
which the other methods cannot. But it is not adaptable to a 
quantitative study of groups of children such as was contem- 
plated, and its results cannot be readily reduced to standards for 
comparing and ranking individuals. Town's method is more 
truly a form perception test than the others, but preliminary 
studies showed that normal children make so few errors that 
their records promise little in the way of norms and standards.^ 
Goddard's method prescribes a definite procedure which partly 
prevents getting the most out of the first trial, but it gives quan- 
titative results and makes possible the establishment of norms 
and standards. For this reason it was unquestionably the 
method to serve as the basis of the intended investigation. 

Number of Trials to be Given 
After these first preliminaries had been completed attention 
was given to a feature of Goddard's method which seemed to call 
for testing before being adopted, namely, the giving of three 

^ See chart III (page 36), and page 51. 



8 



REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 



trials. At the beginning it was necessary to set age limits for 
the children to be tested. Records had been kept of the 400 
children and a number of others of children from three to seven 
years of age were now added. The results showed that an oc- 
casional four year old child could not place all of the blocks 
unless given assistance other than urging. So five years was 
set as the minimum age for the establishment of standards. 
Fourteen years was set as the maximum age because the form 
board is certainly of little value for testing individuals who have 
the ability of that age or of a year or two younger. The ques- 
tion of the number of trials was taken up by testing 200 children, 
20 of each age from five to fourteen inclusive. Each child was 
given five trials at placing the blocks and the time of each trial 
was recorded. The results arranged in two year groups are 
given in tables I, II, and III. According to table I there is a 









Age 








Trial 


5-6 


7-8 


9-10 


11-12 


13-14 


Average 


I 


45 


29 


22 


18 


15 


25.8 


II 


34 


24 


18 


16 


14 


21. 1 


III 


31 


23 


17 


15 


13 


19.6 


IV 


30 


21 


18 


14 


13 


19.2 


V 


30 


22 


17 


13 


12 


18.9 



Table I. — ^Average time in seconds for each of five trials. The data are 
from the records of 20 children of each age from five to fourteen. 









Age 








Trial 


5-6 


7-8 


9-10 


II. 12 


13-14 


Average 


I 


13.8 


5-5 


5-1 


47 


2.6 


6.3 


II 


II.O 


5.2 


3-4 


2.8 


30 


5-1 


III 


9.5 


3-5 


3-2 


2.5 


2.3 


4.2 


IV 


7.8 


3-8 


3-1 


2.5 


2.1 


3-9 


V 


7-6 


3-1 


3-3 


2.4 


2.2 


3-7 



Table II. — Standard deviations for the data of table I. 









Age 








Trial 


5-6 


7-8 


9.10 


II. 12 


13-14 


Total 


I 


I 





2 


I 


2 


6 


II 


8 


9 


9 


8 


6 


40 


III 


II 


12 


14 


10 


12 


59 


IV 


13 


II 


13 


19 


12 


68 


V 


14 


17 


19 


20 


18 


88 



Table III. — Number of individuals making their shortest record on the 
first trial, on the second trial, etc. for the five trials. Data of table I. 
Where the shortest record was made on two different trials each is credited 
with it. 



PRELIMINARY STUDIES 9 

general decrease in the length of time records of successive trials, 
the average falling from 25.8 seconds for the first trial to 19.6 
seconds for the third trial. Each age group shows the decrease 
regularly for the first three trials. The decrease for the fourth 
and the fifth trials is not so marked, the time averages being 
19.2 seconds and 18.9 seconds respectively, and in some of the 
groups the decrease is not regular. Variability (Standard de- 
viations, table II) also shows a decrease with successive trials, 
the averages of the five in order being 6.3, 5.1, 4.2, 3.9, and 3.7 
seconds. Here also the decrease is greatest in the first three 
trials and the age groups show regular decreases except in the 
fourth and fifth. Table III indicates that practice is a very im- 
portant factor, most of the shortest records being made after 
the second trial, and a larger number on the fifth trial than on 
any other. This evidence has less weight when considered in 
the light of the small average time decreases for the fourth and 
the fifth trials as has been noted in table I, for with such small 
average decreases, it must have been that in a great number of 
cases the last trials were shortest by only a second or two. 
These three tables indicate that in general the first trial is the 
most irregular in every way and so is the least reliable. Like- 
wise the fifth trial is the most reliable, and of the five trials each 
is more reliable than those preceding it. The third trial is so 
much more consistent than the first and the second that the neces- 
sity of giving at least three trials is obvious. But the differences 
between the third, fourth, and fifth are comparatively small and 
as will be shown farther on, a difference of a second or two in 
indices is of little consequence. It is evident then that the de- 
mands for brevity and convenience in a test like this more than 
offset the small gain in accuracy that would be made by giving 
a fourth or a fifth trial. Therefore the adoption of three trials 
for the standard method is justified. 

Position of the Blocks in the Three Piles 

Another preliminary study was the testing of 93 totally blind 
children in the Pennsylvania Institution for the Blind. Certain 



10 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

features of the test stand out more clearly in the work of the 
blind than in the more rapid and less labored work of those who 
see. One feature observed was that when two difficult blocks 
or two that are often interchanged are picked up by the two 
hands at the same time, it is likely to confuse the child and to 
prevent his making the best record of which he is capable. The 
star and the cross are the most often interchanged by the blind 
and the lozenge and the enlongated hexagon by seeing children. 
This observation led to the rule that in piling the blocks for chil- 
dren who have vision the lozenge and the elongated hexagon 
must not be placed in the same layer in the piles. This usually 
prevents their being picked up simultaneously. It was also ob- 
served especially in the blind that if the star is picked up early 
in the trial and refuses to slip into place the child is often con- 
fused thereby and has unnecessary trouble with the other blocks. 
It was therefore decided that this, the most difficult block to fit 
into place, should never be left on the top of a pile. If picked up 
late in the trial it cannot disturb the handling of so many other 
blocks. 

Relative Importance of Touch and Vision in the Test 

The main purpose in testing the blind children was to get 
further evidence as to the relative importance of the visual and 
the tactual senses in the form board test. In spite of the fact 
that the child gets no tactile impression of the recesses while 
placing the blocks, it is the opinion of some examiners that touch 
is depended on considerably by children who see. Careful obser- 
vation however, has shown that they usually pick up the blocks 
with no efifort to get a tactile impression of them. In the tests 
with the smaller board no advantage was taken of the clearer 
tactile impressions which the smaller blocks must have given. In- 
trospective reports of students of psychology who were given the 
test indicate that there is little dependence on touch. Some 
blindfolded children are unable to place the blocks at all, and 
blindfolded adults have great difficulty, requiring on an average 
about three minutes for the first trial. Table IV shows the 



PRELIMINARY STUDIES 



ir 





Number of 
individuals 


Average 
age 


Average 
time in 
seconds 


Average 

number of 

errors 


Blind from birth 


31 


13 


69 


4-3 


Vision lost before 
the age of three 


22 


15 


53 


3.8 


Vision lost between 
the ages of three 
and ten 


22 


14 


37 


1-4 



Table IV. — Results from form board tests of totally blind children. 

records made by the blind. At the beginning of the test the 
child explored the board with his hands, examining every recess 
and handhng its corresponding block. He was then given three 
trials, each of which was timed and a record was taken of the 
number of errors. The data given in the table are from the short- 
est of the three time records and the number of errors made in 
that trial. It might be expected that those who have been blind 
from birth would be the most successful in the test because of 
having always depended on the tactile sense instead of having 
adapted themselves to it after form and position had been learned 
visually, but the results do not fulfill this expectation. Those 
who had been blind from birth required the longest time for 
placing the blocks, an average of 69 seconds, while those who 
had retained their vision until after the age of three required on 
the average only 39 seconds. The average number of errors 
made by the two groups were 4.3 and 1.4 respectively,^ — further 
evidence of the difficulty of the test for those who had been blind 
from birth. Obviously they were hindered by something or 
else those who had visual experience were helped by something. 
The small age differences could not have provided the factor. 
Since the three groups differed in no other way, the better suc- 
cess of those who had had visual experience must have been 
due to something that they retained from it. The conclusion 
must be that they retained their visual imagery and were assisted 



12 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

by it in the interpretation of their tactile impressions. The fact 
that those who lack visual imagery find the form board test so 
difficult indicates that vision is much more important than the 
tactile sense in the test ; in fact this evidence added to that from 
observations and from introspections of normal subjects leads to 
the conclusion that the tactile sense is an almost negligible factor 
in the form board test.^ 

Summary 

The conclusions from these preliminary studies have been re- 
ported on the preceding pages in the order in which they were 
reached. In the following summary they are more conveniently 
grouped. 

1. Without a long and elaborate series of experiments (prob- 
ably not worth while), one could not improve on the size, arrange- 
ment, and choice of forms as they appear on the standard form 
board. 

2. In the test, the form board should lie horizontally on a table 
which is low enough to allow the child to lean over and look 
down directly upon the center of the board. The blocks should 
lie in three piles at the top of the board, with no block in the 
pile nearest to its recess, the lozenge and the elongated hexagon 
in different layers, and the star not at the top of a pile. 

3. Goddard's method or a modification of it is the most prom- 
ising for a quantitative study and for the establishing of norms 
and standards for comparing and ranking individuals. 

4. This method cannot be standardized for children younger 
than five years of age because some of them cannot place all of 
the blocks without help other than urging. It is not worth while 
to establish norms for those above fourteen. 

5. The tactile sense figures very little in this test. 

' Fernald, Psychological Bulletin, X, 62 ; Sylvester, Psychological Bulletin, 
X, 210; Dearborn, American Journal of Psychology, XXIV, 204. 



Ill 

A STUDY OF THE FORM BOARD TEST IN ITS APPLI- 
CATION TO RETARDED AND DEFECTIVE 
CHILDREN 

The first important study following the preliminary work was 
the testing of the children in the special backward classes of the 
Philadelphia Public Schools. At that time there were 45 of 
these classes with a total enrollment of about 780. Of this num- 
ber some were foreign born children placed there until they could 
get a start in English, some were there for disciplinary reasons, 
and some because of deafness, poor vision, or other physical de- 
fects. These three groups were not included and a few other 
children were absent from school when the tests were made, so 
the total number tested was 616. The ages of 1 1 of these were 
not obtainable so their records were thrown out, leaving 605. 
Goddard's method was used, modified as to the piling of the 
blocks and in other ways to accord with the conclusions drawn in 
the preliminary studies. In addition the child was to be graded 
on as many features as possible. The teacher's estimate of the 
child and any other information that she could give concerning 
him were also to be used. The work w^as undertaken with three 
purposes ; first, to determine which features of a child's work at 
the form board can be satisfactorily graded ; second, to find which 
of the obtainable facts concerning him are of value in connection 
with the test; and third, to differentiate the characteristic ways 
in which children of various types work at the test. The first 
two of these purposes were successfully carried out but the third 
was not, the 605 children proving to be such a hetereogeneous 
group and the data so inco-ordinate as to defy all attempts at 
classification. The work had an additional value in serving as 
a preparation for the more careful quantitative studies of normal 
children. Improved ways of securing proper testing conditions 
were developed with experience and the procedure of the test 
itself was adjusted and smoothed. 



14 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

Plan and Procedure 

At the beginning the test was explained to the child quite 
fully, and during the explanation the examiner put all of the 
blocks into place and removed them once. As it had been de- 
cided to make the time element the main feature it was thought 
that the child should be given every chance to make his best 
possible record. (For a better procedure that was worked out 
later see page 34. ) The child started each trial from the signals, 

"Ready — Go." The records of 
the handling of the blocks were 
taken by an assistant in the form 
shown in the accompanying chart. 
This specimen record shows that 
the child began by picking up 
block 6, trying it at recess 8, and 
then placing it in its proper re- 
cess. (See page i for forni num- 
bering.) Next blocks 9 and 3 
were placed correctly. Block o 
61 sec. 77 sec. 49 sec. ^"^^^ tried at recess i, then unsuc- 

cessfully at its own recess, then 
at recess 5, and finally it was fitted into its own recess. Two 
errors were made with block 8 and one with block i. Block 5 
was tried at recess 4 and laid aside, then blocks 4, 2, 7, and 5 
were placed in order. Thus the handling of every block in the 
first trial is shown. At the foot of each column is recorded the 
time of the trial in seconds.^ 

The investigator besides handling the stop watch recorded his 
estimate on the child's co-ordination, apparent mentality, ability 
at planning ahead, and use of the hands. From the teacher were 
obtained data including the child's age, reasons for his being in 
the special class, whether she regarded him as mentally defective 
or as merely retarded, his general school progress, and her esti- 
mate of his ability at hand-work. At the beginning the investi- 

*Tliis is Goddard's method of taking the record. 



FIRST 


SECOND 


THIRD 


TRIAL 


TRIAL 


TRIAL 


686 


939 


9 


9 


725867 


6 


3 


2 


5 


01050 


81508 


383 


8548 


515 


I 


141 


3 


4 


54 


606 


7 


4 





828 


2 


I 


020 


7 


4 


2 


5 







RETARDED AND DEFECTIVE CHILDREN IS 

gator undertook to estimate certam other features such as interest, 
attention, alertness, and learning ability, but one by one they were 
dropped as it became evident that they could not be estimated in 
such a way as to have a bearing on the test. After some 200 
children had been tested, it was evident that there was another 
feature which should have been included, namely, poise. The 
remainder of the children were graded on this. Exactly what is 
here meant by poise is made clear in the discussion of results 
(page 19). 

Age and Sex Considerations 

After various attempts had been made at arranging the data 
it became evident that the time records have the most consistent 
variability and are therefore the best basis for arrangement. The 
grouping above the 18 second records in table V is more or less 
forced but it is the least objectionable of any that were tried. In 
the first columns at the left are shown the number of individuals 
in each time record group, their distribution by ages, and their 
average ages. Even these sub-normal children show some corre- 
lation between age and the time required for placing the blocks. 
In the column of average ages there appears a gradual increase 
of age from the 40-49 second group to the 10 second group, but 
the distribution shows that the shortest records were made not 
by the oldest but by the fourteen year old group. The shortest 
records focus toward that age. Arranging the data in a way not 
shown in the table it is found that the average time record for 
each age is as follows : 

Age 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 IS 16 17 

Av. time 22.6 23.7 20.9 19.4 19.1 17.S 16.6 IS-Q 16.8 16.S 16.6 

The fact that the fourteen year old group made shorter records 
on an average than the older ones is due to the brighter children 
dropping out of school after the age of fourteen, which is the 
limit of compulsory education. Why this elimination is selective, 
leaving the less capable individuals in the special backward classes, 
is not pertinent to this study. 

Sex distribution is of little importance. Foi" reasons not of 



i6 



REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 





















be 


Sex 




c « 


a 
u S 






Distribution 


by 


ages 












•-T3 


<u T3 
















bo 




^ 




11 


7 8 


9 


10 II 12 


13 


14 


IS 


16 17 


I-. 
> 

< 


<u 


E 


Unfinished 


6 






211 






I 




10.8 


4 


2 


So-ioi 


15 






3 3 3 


2 


I 


2 




11.7 


7 


8 


40-49 


21 


I 10 


2 


2 3 


I 


I 




I 


9-7 


7 


14 


30-39 


24 


I 3 


4 


5 5 I 


2 


2 


I 




10.5 


IS 


9 


26-29 


33 


I 5 


2 


684 


3 


2 


I 


I 


10.8 


22 


II 


23-25 


41 


I 4 


8 


5 II 6 


I 


2 


2 


I 


10.7 


27 


14 


21-22 


46 


I 


5 


896 


6 


5 


4 


I I 


1 1.8 


27 


19 


19-20 


60 


2 


8 


8 10 12 


7 


5 


6 


2 


11.7 


49 


II 


18 


61 


I 


3 


5 13 22 


8 


6 




3 


1 1.9 


SI 


10 


17 


49 


I 


2 


I 12 12 


9 


7 


4 


I 


12.3 


3S 


14 


16 


68 




3 


13 8 II 


16 


7 


7 


3 


12.3 


61 


7 


15 


60 






3 6 8 


17 


14 


4 


7 I 


13.3 


S2 


8 


14 


62 






I 7 13 


9 


16 


9 


6 I 


134 


S4 


8 


13 


31 






I 2 7 


4 


13 


3 


I 


13-3 


28 


3 


12 


IS 






I 


5 


7 


2 




137 


IS 




II 


10 






I 


I 


7 


I 




13-8 


10 




10 


3 










3 






14.0 


3 




Total 


605 


7 26 


37 


63 95 III 


91 


98 


47 


27 3 




467 


138 



Table V. — The data from the 605 backward class children. 

interest here, a relatively small number of girls are placed in the 
special backward classes. It is a matter of observation confirmed 
by these results that the girls of these classes, as a group, are 
more backward than the boys. The table shows that the shortest 
form board records were made by boys entirely. The average 
for all records was 20.3 seconds for boys and 26.2 seconds for 
girls. Obviously the girls of a mental grade corresponding to 
the brighter boys in the backward classes were left in the regular 
classes. If equal numbers of boys and of girls were selected for 
the special backward classes they would be more nearly of the 
same grade of mentality and their form board records would be 
more nearly equal. Later form board tests of normal children 
revealed no sex differences. 

The Time Records in Relation to School Work 
Ability and to Mentality 

The main purpose of the columns on school progress, hand- 
work, and mentality is to give the reader information concerning 



RETARDED AND DEFECTIVE CHILDREN 



17 



School progress 



h 



l-H 







6 






15 




2 


19 


I 


5 
6 


19 
26 


I 

2 


lO 

6 


30 

38 


3 


i8 


39 


2 


12 

6 


49 
41 


5 


16 


47 


! 2 


13 


45 


I 


10 


51 


5 


7 


10 


3 


3 

3 


9 
6 


: 2 


I 





H 


md wc 


rk 




Mentality 


J3 "5 


n 


^ S5 


















u 




^g, 




Sri 






Ui 








^ 


!:; g 




j:: 


(U 









a, 


-a 

03 


3 






af 


be 


be ^ 


DM-. 

bfi 


*t3 











u 
V 




bo.i 




2 •- 


Ua 


Oa 


> 


fii 


Q 


Q 


:d 


> 


CAl 


Ph 


< 






6 






6 




I 










I 


14 




2 


13 




7 






36 






21 


I 


4 


10 


I 


12 


2 




17 






24 


2 


4 


18 




10 


5 




IS 




4 


29 


5 


10 


18 


4 


9 


9 




9 


3 


6 


2^ 


12 


10 


19 


5 


II 


9 




7 


I 


9 


36 


10 


15 


21 


7 


12 


8 




5 


4 


16 


40 


23 


13 


24 


9 


15 


13 




6 


1 & 


17 


38 


18 


22 


21 


12 


12 


10 




5 


5 


15 


29 


23 


8 


18 


14 


12 


I 




5 


8 


18 


42 


34 


9 


25 


20 


13 






3 


6 


23 


31 


32 


12 


:6 


13 


14 




6 


4 


17 


16 


29 


40 


12 


10 


25 


2 




8 


3 


6 


6 


19 


19 


7 


5 


21 


3 




12 


4 


2 


3 


ID 


14 




I 


14 






13 


3 


3 


4 


3 


7 


I 


2 


10 






10 


3 


2 


I 




3 






3 






3 


3 


63 


139 


403 


243 


129 


233 


158 


133 


57 


52 





28 118 459 

Table V. — Concluded. 

the kind of children that were tested. The grading calls for ex- 
planation. School progress and hand-work were reported by 
the teachers on a three point scale : fair, poor, and very poor, the 
standard being that of ordinary school children. Aside from 
showing a much stronger correlation between hand-work ability 
and form board ability than between school progress and form 
board ability, the data contributes little except that it helps to 
give a notion of the personnel of the groups of children. 

Unfortunately no good estimate of the grade of mentality of 
each child could be made. Had they been graded or grouped 
according to some approved scheme of mental classification it 
would have aided greatly in the interpretation of the form board 
results. The best that could be done was to record the investi- 
gator's estimate of the child's mentality after he had watched 
him through the form board test and perhaps asked him a few 
questions. There was also recorded the teacher's estimate based 
on her impression of the child as her pupil. A two point grading 
was adopted; all being graded either as retarded or defective. 



i 



i8 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

The criterion was that those placed in the lower group, the de- 
fectives, had evidently been subnormal from birth and could never 
have been trained to economical and social independence. This 
classification is far from satisfactory and it involves a further 
misuse of the already over-worked terms, retarded and defective, 
but it served fairly well for a common basis for estimates by 
teacher and investigator. In cases where the two agreed there 
was some likelihood of their being correct. The middle column, 
marked doubtful, contains 129 cases on which the opinions of 
the examiner and the teacher disagreed. It is unfortunate that 
this number should be so large, but it is likely that most of them 
were borderline cases or cases not easily understood. The dis- 
tribution in the retarded and the defective columns indicates that 
the former group did the test much the more successfully. The 
average time records for the two groups were 16.5 seconds and 
30 seconds respectively. Although the grouping is no doubt 
faulty, there is certainly strong evidence here of a correlation 
between mentality and ability at the form board test. 

Important Features Other Than Time and Errors 

The four columns next to the last in table V give the data 
which it was found can be taken in connection with the form 
board test and which contribute to the value of the test in diagno- 
sis. First is shown the number of children of each time record 
group who used two hands successfully and simultaneously in 
placing the blocks. As compared with normal children (see page 
50) a relatively small number did this. One feature observed 
but not shown in the table is that several of the older children 
who used but one hand at a time, changed from one to the other 
in successive trials, apparently succeeding with one as well as 
with the other. Normal children rarely change hands. 

In muscular co-ordination 133 were graded as very poor. Inco- 
ordination is not so noticeable in children whose mentality is 
such that they attempt no quick or accurate movements, so these 
results do not mean that all but 133 of these 605 had good co- 
ordination. 



RETARDED AND DEFECTIVE CHILDREN 19 

Poise, as here used, means the ability to work at one's maxi- 
mum speed without losing control and getting confused. When 
a child in his efforts to place the blocks quickly, over hurries and 
gets flustered so that he makes numerous and inexcusable errors 
or hesitates in a semi-dazed way, he does so because he is lacking 
in this quality which we have chosen to call poise. Take for in- 
stance one of these backward cases, an eleven year old boy whose 
record for the three trials in order were 36, 52, and 62 seconds, 
and the number of errors 4, 5, and 11. His efforts at hurrying 
caused him to make errors and to lose time. When given a fourth 
trial and told to work slowly he placed the blocks in 21 seconds 
and made no errors. Some defectives show a lack of poise as 
soon as they begin to work rapidly. Urging by the examiner is 
likely to throw them into confusion. Later studies of normal 
children showed that although they are sometimes momentarily 
hindered by over hurrying, they do not go into utter confusion. 
Practically all of them make better records when urged by the 
examiner during the work. In other words, the child who is 
lacking in poise is very likely not of normal mentality. As pre- 
viously stated, no records were kept of this factor until the chil- 
dren in several of the classes had been tested. Of 377 who were 
marked on poise, 57 were graded as seriously lacking in the qual- 
ity. (Table V.) Many of these 57 were of the excitable defective 
type ; others could not be called defectives but they were mentally 
retarded because of nervous trouble. Many of them made numer- 
ous attempts to fit blocks into wrong recesses, the average of the 
57 being 7.3 errors each. Poise is a detail which the examiner 
can observe to advantage. It is important not only in extreme 
cases, but in the many who momentarily lose control or show a 
tendency to do so there is often some instability that calls for 
further study. 

By planning ahead is meant that before the signal "Go", the 
child glances at the blocks on the top of the piles, then at their re- 
cesses and is thus ready at the signal to shoot them into place 
without hesitation. Most normal adults and many children do 
this (See page 50) but younger children do not. Only 52 of 



20 



REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 



these backward class children did so, according to table V. An 
individual is credited with planning ahead if he does it on one or 
more trials. 

The Records of Errors 

In the last column of table V is shown the average number of 
errors made by each individual in all three trials. For the ex- 
tremely long time records the average number of errors is 36, 
for the shortest records the average is 3, and between these ex- 
tremes there is a somewhat irregular correlation between the 
length of time record and the number of errors. These 605 
backward children averaged more than 6 errors each, whereas 
normal children average less than three (chart III, page 36). 
Evidently a large number of errors indicates low mentality. 

A statement of the number of times that each possible kind 
of error was made is given in table VI. Horizontally the spaces 















Recesses 
















I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 





Total 




I 


4 


6 


3 


62 


81 


3 


4 


63 


I 


15 


242 




2 


20 


2 


24 


32 


19 


9 


14 


12 


9 


75 


216 




3 


7 


16 


4 


3 


9 


18 


16 


7 


62 


42 


184 


M 


4 


3H 


3 


9 


4 


102 


3 


6 


31 


4 


99 


299 


u 




5 


23 


4 





45 


4 


5 


17 


58 




4 


162 


W 


6 


9 


5 


8 


6 


12 




55 


67 




31 


193 




7 


21 


17 


23 


15 


65 


67 




68 


4 


97 


377 




8 


III 


4 


5 


t)l 


159 


24 


9 




I 


35 


409 




9 


2 


19 


no 


4 


10 


15 


3 


4 


7 


20 


195 







41 


60 


15 


305 


116 


8 


27 


61 


8 


2 


643 


Total 


276 


136 


203 


537 


577 


1.53 


151 


.371 


96 


420 


2920 



Table VI. — Distribution of the kinds of errors made by the 605 backward 
class children. The upper line, for instance, indicates 4 futile attempts to 
fit block I into its own recess, 6 attempts to fit it into recess 2, 3 at recess 3, 
62 at recess 4, etc., and a total of 242 errors with this block. Since each of 
the 60s children had three trials, a total of 1815 errors with each block was 
possible. (See footnote, page 23.) 

represent the ten recesses of the form board and vertically they 
represent the ten blocks. The numbers in the upper horizontal 
line show the number of futile attempts at putting block i into 
each of the ten recesses. Four attempts at its own recess failed 
and there were six attempts at recess 2, three at recess 3, sixty- 



RETARDED AND DEFECTIVE CHILDREN 21 

two at recess 4, and so on for the others. The other horizontal 
hnes give corresponding data for the other blocks.- According 
to this table, by far the most frequent error was that of attempt- 
ing to put block o into recess 4. The only possible errors not 
made were 5-9 and 6-9 and futile attempts to fit block 6, 7, and 8 
into their own recesses.^ 

One important conclusion is to be drawn by arranging the data 
in the form of table VII. Here the twelve most frequent errors'* 



Time in 










Kind of 


Errors 








Seconds 


0-4 


8-1 


8-5 


6-8 


7-8 


4-0 


1-4 3-9 9-0 


6-7 


0-5 9-3 


30 to lOI 


4 


3 


4 


2 


2 


2 


2 


3 


3 


2 


2 4 


20 to 29 


II 


4 


7 


3 


3 


4 


2 


2 


4 


3 


5 6 


15 to 19 


15 


4 


b 


2 


3 


5 


2 


2 


3 


I 


5 3 


10 to 14 


16 


.5 


7 


2 


I 


5 


3 


2 


3 


2 


4 2 



Table VII. — The twelve most frequent kinds of errors of the 605 back- 
ward class children arranged according to the time records. The data is in 
per cent, of the total number of errors made by each of the four time record 
groups. Thus, the 4 in the upper left space means that of the total number of 
mistakes made by the group whose time records were 30 seconds or more, 
4 per cent, were the 0-4 error. 

are arranged according to four time record groups, — those longer 
than 29 seconds, the 20 to 29 second records, the 15 to 19 second 
records, and those shorter than 15 seconds. This is a condensa- 
tion of the grouping that is used in table V. The data are given 
in percentages of the total number of errors made by each group. 
In table XIV, page 40, it is shown that with normal children of 
all ages the 0-4 error is by far the most frequent and that the 

^In this enumeration of kinds of errors, all three trials are included but 
only the first wrong recess tried with each block. For example, from trial 
I in the record shown on page 14 there was taken only the 6-8, o-i, 8-5, 1-4, 
and 5-4 errors. The failure to fit block o into its own recess and the attempt 
with this block at recess 4 are not included. This is necessary because only 
the first error is made directly after the child has looked at the block in the 
pile and glanced over the board for its recess. The errors after this first 
one are made under various conditions and so do not merely represent a 
failure to perceive the relation of block to recess. 

'Where the kind of error is designated by two numbers separated by 
a dash, the first number names the block and the second the recess. 

*The twelve most frequent errors are almost the same in tables VII and 
XIV. They are arranged here according to their frequency in the latter, 
in order that the two tables may be compared. 



22 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

occurrence of the more common ones does not vary significantly 
with age. In table VII the same is true of the two groups whose 
time records average below 20 seconds and to a less degree of 
the 20 to 29 second group, but in the longest records group there 
is little tendency to make one kind of error more frequently than 
another. Since nearly all of these longest records were made by 
children of quite low mentality, the one conclusion to be drawn 
is that if a child makes the 0-4 error and the other common ones 
more frequently than others he is to be credited for doing so. In 
other words, he is probably of higher mentality than a similar 
child whose errors are more evenly distributed. This feature is 
peculiar in that it varies with the degree of mentality but not with 
the age and it is therefore especially important. 

Summary 

This study of retarded and defective children yielded the fol- 
lowing conclusions : 

1. Those children whose time records were the longest are gen- 
erally of the lowest mentality. 

2. It is impracticable to record observations on interest, atten- 
.tion, alertness, and certain other features in a regular manner. 
In cases where they are important they must be recorded in the 
examiner's general notes or in connection with other tests and 
parts of the examination. Muscular co-ordination and poise are 
splendidly revealed in the form board test and are well worth 
grading, and records should be made of whether two hands are 
used at the same time successfully and whether the child plans 
ahead. 

3. Records of the handling of the blocks can be satisfactorily 
taken and are of great value. The greatest number of errors 
occur in the long time records and are made by children of low 
mentality. 

4. Some kinds of errors are more common than others. A 
tendency toward making more of certain errors than of others 
indicates higher mentality than does a tendency to make one error 
as often as another. 



IV 

A SPECIAL STUDY OF THE TIME AND ERROR 
FEATURES OF THE FORM BOARD TEST 

The most serious difficulty to be met in the study of age varia- 
tions in the results of any test lies in the differences of advance- 
ment of the individuals in each age group. Every child is more 
or less retarded or precocious, or both. Not only may his phys- 
iological age, his mental age, his pedagogical age, and his chron- 
ological age be at variance with each other but there may be a 
wide range of variation within each except the last. For in- 
stance, a child ten years of age pedagogically (that is, in fourth 
grade at school) may be well advanced in reading but very back- 
ward in writing or arithmetic. Physiologically he may have the 
muscular co-ordination of a twelve year old but only the muscular 
strength of a child two or three years younger. Mentally he may 
pass the digit memory test of the twelfth year Binet questions 
but fail on the ninth year definition question. Excluding de- 
fectives and other noticeably peculiar individuals, one still has in 
ordinary children of a given chronological age, a most hetero- 
geneous group. The ages are scattered over the entire year so 
that an eight year old child may be 360 days older than certain 
others of the eight year old group but only a day or two younger 
than some of the nine year old group. To smooth out such varia- 
tions and to obtain reliable results in a study of age changes 
requires a huge mass of data, the collecting of which is imprac- 
ticable in a study such as this one with the form board. Under 
the most favorable circumstances only ten to fifteen children can 
be tested in an hour. In the present investigation the difficulty 
was partly met by testing strictly limited groups of children, se- 
lected according to requirements which partly eliminated the fac- 
tors causing the heterogeneity. Reasonably extensive data from 



24 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

groups as nearly homogeneous as careful selecting could make 
them were collected. 

Selection of the Children 

Five hundred children were tested; 25 boys and 25 girls of each 
age from five to fourteen inclusive. Reasons for these age limits 
have been given on page 9. The requirements were as follows : — 
(i) The birthday of each child selected came within a month of 
the day on which the test was given. This made the ages nearly 
exact by years. (2) He was neither retarded nor accelerated 
pedagogically according to Philadelphia Public School standards. 
That is, the fourteen year olds were selected from the eighth 
grade, the thirteen year olds from the eleventh grade, and so on 
down to the eight year olds from the second grade. On this scale 
seven year olds would have been taken from the first grade and 
there would have been no grade for six year olds. The best that 
could be done was to select seven year olds from the upper first 
grade and six year olds from the lower first grade. Five year 
olds were selected from the kindergarten. (3) Each child was 
American born and his parents' name and occupation indicated 
nothing in race or in home conditions especially favorable or 
unfavorable. Colored children were excluded. (4) He was free 
from physical defect and there was nothing peculiar or striking 
in his personal appearance. (5) Mentally he was not especially 
bright or dull or in any way different from ordinary children. 

The method of selection was as follows : The investigator 
took from the school records the names of children meeting the 
first three of the above requirements. Principals and teachers 
checked off from these lists the names of those who in their 
opinion did not meet the fourth and the fifth requirements. Fi- 
nally, when the children appeared at the testing room the investi- 
gator rejected those whose personal appearance led him to suspect 
and physical or mental peculiarity. This was the final elimination. 
All children who were admitted to the test were allowed to com- 
plete it and no records were thrown out. The elimination by 
these requirements was heavy, the records of some 11,000 chil- 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 25 

dren being gone over before 500 meeting the requirements were 
found. 

A difficult part of the work was the securing of conditions 
favorable to the children's assuming the proper attitude toward 
the test. As compared with the carefully controlled conditions 
of most experiments in the psychological laboratory, it is almost 
presumptuous to report as psychological tests, work done in a 
public school and especially by an investigator who is a stranger 
in the school. If one, however, keeps in mind the ideal of psy- 
chological laboratory conditions and does not allow himself to 
proceed when conditions are not at the best, he is well repaid for 
it in the reliability of his results. First it is necessary to secure 
the good will and the co-operation of principals and teachers. If 
they are impatient and not interested the children will not do 
their best. Then the children must be dealt with tactfully. Some 
older boys and girls are inclined to regard the tests as too child- 
ish for them, and the little folks are likely to associate it with 
medical inspectors, throat examinations, and vaccinations. From 
the experience gained in the preliminary tests and in the tests in 
the backward classes, there had been worked out a definite plan 
of procedure which reduced the disturbance of the school to a 
minimum, usually secured the hearty co-operation of principals 
and teachers, and put the children into the proper attitude toward 
the investigator and the test. In a few cases after the work had 
been begun in a school, it was postponed or abandoned because 
of some disturbing influence or lack of co-operation on the part of 
the principal. No tests were given under unfavorable conditions. 

The testing procedure was that described on pages 14 and 15, 
except that the investigator himself took no data. He held the 
stop watch and otherwise gave his attention to the management 
of the test. 

Reduction of the Records to Time Indices 

The data thus collected consisted of individual records of the 
500 children showing the time required for each of the three trials 
and the order in which the blocks were handled, with occasional 



26 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

observations dictated by the investigator at the end of the test. 
The first problem to be taken up in the study of the time records 
was that of reducing each individual's record to a significant value 
which would stand as an index of his form board ability. In the 
preliminary studies it had been found that the time of the third 
trial would be a more reliable index than the time of either of 
the others. (Page 9.) And according to the usual procedure 
in psychological tests, especially where practice is so strong a 
factor, the time of the third trial would be taken as the index. 
But Witmer's emphasis on the importance of the child's first ef- 
forts suggests the use of the time of the first trial as the index, 
and he would probably record this if he were to keep a time re- 
cord. Woodworth also favors the use of the first trial record. 
But the evidence in the preliminary studies was that this trial's 
results are too irregular to be reliable. Goddard takes the short- 
est of the three trials for the index. Whipple^ and Franz^ use 
this shortest of three trials index in some of their strength tests. 
A fourth method of scoring suggests itself, — taking the average 
time of the three trials as the index. This would include the 
third trial, the first trial and the shortest trial, giving weight to 
each. 

The distribution of records arranged according to each of 
these four standards is shown in tables VIII, IX, X, and XI, and 
their curves of averages of time records for each age are shown 
in chart I. It is quite remarkable that the four curves run so 
nearly parallel. So far as is shown in the curves themselves, any 
one of them could be used as the standard index without serious 
error, the time averages for the different ages varying in about 
the same way in all. But variability of individual records indi- 
cates that these four standards applied to individual cases would 
give very different rankings. Take for instance two of the four- 
teen year old records. A's record is 14, 11, and 9 seconds for 
the three trials, and B's record is 9, 11, and 10 seconds. Now 
with the shortest trial as the standard for an index A and B did 

'■Manual of Mental and Physical Tests, pp. 71, 75, and 80. 
'Mental Examination Methods, p. 49. 



103 






















86 






















68 






















6i 






















56 






















51 


2 




















50 


2 


I 


















49 






















48 


2 




















47 


I 


I 


















46 


2 




















45 


2 




















44 


2 


I 


















43 


I 




















42 


3 




















41 


2 


2 


I 
















40 


4 


I 


















39 


2 




I 
















38 


2 


I 


















-0 27^ 




3 


I 


I 














§ 36 


I 


2 






2 












^ 35 


2 


I 


















" 34 


3 


2 






I 












-S 33 


I 








I 












<u 22 


I 








I 












.§ 31 


I 


I 


2 


I 














H 30 


I 


6 


I 
















29 


2 


3 


3 


2 




I 










28 


2 


2 


5 


3 


2 












27 


2 


4 


3 


I 


I 












26 


I 


2 


I 


I 


3 


I 










25 


I 


2 


3 


4 


2 












24 




7 


2 


2 


2 












23 




2 


4 


5 














22 




3 


5 


4 


2 


I 










21 




I 


3 


6 


6 


6 






I 


I 


20 




I 


5 


7 


6 


3 




I 






19 






4 


8 


5 


4 


5 


I 




I 


18 






3 


3 


4 


7 


4 




I 


I 


17 










8 


10 


6 


3 


2 


2 


16 




I 


I 


2 


4 


7 


6 


3 


5 


6 


15 






I 






5 


12 


9 


9 


5 


14 












3 


9 


10 


10 


10 


13 






I 






I 




II 


8 


7 


12 












I 


I 


5 


6 


6 


II 














2 


3 


4 


6 


10 
















2 


3 


2 


9 
















2 


I 


3 




5 


6 


7 


8 


9 

Age 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 



Table VIIL— Distribution of the /ir^-f <na/ time records. 



95 




71 




57 




5o 




49 




4S 




47 








46 
45 
44 

43 
42 

41 
40 

39 
38 
37 
26 
35 
34 
33 
32 
31 
30 
29 
28 
27 
26 
25 



24 


I 


8 


2 


4 














23 




5 


6 


3 














22 




6 


5 


6 


2 












21 




9 


9 


7 


I 












20 




2 


5 


6 


7 




2 








19 




2 


5 


6 


8 


I 




I 






18 






4 


9 


7 


5 










17 




I 


3 


4 


9 


5 


2 


I 






16 








I 


7 


8 


8 


3 


I 




15 








3 


4 


9 


10 


3 


4 


I 


14 






I 


I 


I 


9 


II 


II 


8 


4 


13 










I 


7 


9 


13 


8 


6 


12 












I 


6 


8 


9 


II 


II 












4 


I 


8 


II 


16 


10 












I 




2 


6 


10 


9 














I 




3 


2 




5 


6 


7 


8 


9 

Arc 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 



Table IX. — Distribution of the third trial time records. 



83 


I 




71 


I 




50 






49 

48 


I 
I 




47 
46 






45 






44 






43 


I 




42 


2 




41 


I 




40 






39 
38 


I 
I 




■ 36 

1 35 


3 
3 
3 




34 
y 33 


2 

I 


I 


=« 12 


I 


2 



fa ^y 


5 


2 


















H 28 


2 


2 


















27 


5 


2 


















26 


5 


3 


I 
















25 


4 


3 


I 
















24 


I 


6 


3 


I 














23 




6 


4 


3 














22 




9 


4 


4 


I 












21 




4 


14 


7 














20 




3 


5 


7 


3 












19 




I 


7 


6 


9 






I 






18 






6 


9 


10 


2 


I 








17 




I 


3 


7 


II 


8 










16 




2 




2 


10 


9 


5 


I 






15 






I 


3 


4 


9 


7 


3 


3 




14 








I 


I 


8 


19 


8 


3 


3 


13 






I 




I 


9 


10 


13 


9 


3 


12 












3 


4 


12 


12 


9 


II 












I 


I 


9 


12 


17 


10 












I 


2 


3 


7 


12 


9 














I 




4 


6 




5 


6 


7 


8 


9 
Age. 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 



Table X. — Distribution of the shortest trial time records. 





103 


I 






















79 


I 






















62 


I 






















50 


4 






















49 
























48 


2 






















47 
























46 
























45 
























44 


2 






















43 


I 






















42 
























41 


2 






















40 


4 




I 


















39 


2 


I 


















. 


38 


4 




















-a 


37 


I 




















G 

o 


36 


I 


2 




















35 


4 


I 


















C/D 


34 


I 


5 


I 
















.s 


33 


2 


I 


















<U 


32 


2 


I 


















B 


31 


4 


I 


I 
















H 


30 
29 
28 

27 
26 

25 
24 
23 
22 


2 
6 

3 


2 
6 

3 
3 

4 
5 

4 
8 


2 

2 
7 
4 

7 
6 

I 


I 
2 
3 
4 

4 

5 


I 

I 
2 
I 
3 














21 




I 


5 


9 


7 


3 












20 




I 


7 


6 


8 


I 


I 


I 








19 






2 


5 


7 


3 


2 










18 




I 


2 


6 


8 


8 


2 










17 






I 


3 


7 


10 


8 


I 








16 








2 


3 


6 


9 


4 


4 


I 




IS 










2 


II 


13 


7 


5 


4 




14 






I 






5 


9 


13 


9 


5 




13 












2 


3 


12 


13 


14 




12 












I 




7 


10 


14 




II 














3 


4 


7 


8 




10 
















I 


I 


3 




9 


1 , 
















I 


I 



9 10 

Ase. 



13 



14 



Table XI. — Distribution of the average of three trials time records. 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 



31 



^^- 



T^/ra^ Trya/ 



KS^.rfe^/'a/T/^^ee^/a/s 




Chart L- 



-Averages of the time records of the 500 selected children. 



the test equally well, the index for each being 9 seconds. With 
the third trial as the standard A did better than B, the indices 
being 9 and 10. With the first trial as the standard B did better 
than A, the indices being 9 and 14. With the average of three 
trials as the standard B did better than A, the indices being 10 
and II. These are extreme cases but they emphasize the import- 
ance of choosing the right one of these standards. 

Since variability is the great disturbing factor, that standard 
which gives the lowest and most regular variability is probably 
the best of the four. This criterion immediately eliminates the 
\first trial standard, chart II showing that its variability curve is 
both higher and more irregular than the other three. The curve 
for the third trial's variability is fairly low and smooth but this 
trial as a standard is eliminated by the results shown in table XII. 
This table shows that of the 500 records there were but 177 
(138 -f- 39) in which it was the lowest, and in 207 (10 + 10 
+ 59 + 105 + 12 + 11) either the second or the first was the 



32 



REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 




s y- /» 

y^e //r years. 

Chart II. — Standard deviations for the data of Chart I. 



Relative lengths 










Ages 












of the three trials. 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 


Total 


I =: II = 














2 




3 


3 


2 


10 


I = II < 










2 




I 


2 


I 


3 


I 


10 


I = II > 






2 


2 


6 


4 


4 


7 


6 


S 


3 


39 


I > II = 




2 


.S 


6 


ID 


7 


S 


7 





3 


s 


59 


I > II < 




13 


II 


16 


1.3 


II 


7 


12 


7 


8 


7 


lOS 


I > II > 




17 


18 


17 


II 


12 


14 


7 


S 


16 


20 


138 


I < II = 




I 


I 


I 




3 


I 




I 


4 




12 


I < II < 




2 


?, 


2 




I 






2 




I 


II 


I < II > 


III 


15 


9 


6 


8 


12 


16 


IS 


16 


8 


II 


116 


Total 


50 


50 


SO 


SO 


SO 


50 


50 


SO 


50 


SO 


500 



Table XII. — Results for each age in terms of the relative lengths of the 
three trials. The =, > and < signs indicate the relative lengths of the 
time records of the three trials. The numbers in the body of the table 
shoviT the number of individuals of each group whose three time records 
w^ere in each of the possible combinations of relative lengths. 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 33 

lowest. Although practice is probably the dominant factor in 
the variability of the length of time records, the presence of other 
important factors is shown by the many individual cases in which 
the first trial or the second trial was shorter than the third. Ob- 
servation of children working at the test reveals the fact that 
over-hurrying, change of method of handling the blocks, or diffi- 
culty in getting some block down into its recess, may make the 
third trial longer than the others, and that there is an element of 
luck which makes the third trial index an unfair one in many 
cases. This standard is therefore undesirable. 

Taking up the shortest of three trial index one finds in chart 
II that its curve is the lowest and is almost as smooth as any. 
The smoothness of the curve for the average of three trials is 
somewhat discounted because of its representing averages of aver- 
ages, its position for each age being determined by the average of 
150 time records while the corresponding positions of the other 
curves are determined by averages of 50 time records each. By 
the criterions of amount of variability and regularity of varia- 
bility, the shortest of three trials is therefore the best of the four 
standards. 

After this statistical study which led to the choosing of the 
shortest trial standard some time was spent in studying individual 
children, following the form board test with a thorough mental 
examination. In many cases the shortest trial index was found 
to be unsatisfactory and in some it was quite misleading. It was 
found that if the time records of the first trial and of the shortest 
trial were averaged, an index was obtained which usually agreed 
with the conclusions from mental examination of the child. Ob- 
viously, therefore, the first trial was of such importance that it 
could not be neglected. It was then decided to adopt tentatively 
the average of three trials as a standard. Applied to the records 
of the cases that had been examined and to several additional 
ones, it proved to be the most satisfactory of anything that had 
been tried. Without doubt, the average of three trials is a more 
reliable index to the mentality of a child than is any other single 



34 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

numerical index, but even this is too mechanical and in many 
cases is misleading. 

While this application of the average of three trials standard 
to individual cases was being made, another method suggested 
itself. It was tried on a number of cases and the preceding data 
were gone over from the new point of view so far as possible. 
It proved satisfactory and was welcomed because it included im- 
portant features of the test which in the effort to reduce the rec- 
ords to the form of an index of one number, had been reluctantly 
excluded. The method is as follows. The child is introduced 
to the test with practically no instruction concerning it, merely 
the remark, "Let us see how quickly you can put the blocks into 
place". His first reactions are studied and full note is taken of 
his behavior and of his efforts until he succeeds in getting the 
blocks into place, or shows that he cannot do it. After this first 
trial, any instruction necessary is given to make him understand 
where the blocks belong and that he is to replace them as quickly 
as possible. Then the second and the third trials are given, start- 
ing him each time from the signals, "Ready — Go", urging him 
and giving him every chance to make the best possible records. 
The shortest of the two time records is taken as his time index. 
This with the notes taken on the first trial and the records of the 
handling of the blocks as taken by an assistant, constitutes tihe 
standard record. This method allows the use of Witmer's idea 
of carefully studying the first trial and at the same time it per- 
mits the use of the shortest trial time index which statistical 
checks had shown to be the most satisfactory. Most normal chil- 
dren proceed to place the blocks properly without instruction, 
and so make a fairly good time record on the first trial. An oc- 
casional child will fail to set the blocks entirely down into place 
or will even fail to lay them upon their proper recesses. These 
can easily be set right before the second trial. Of defective chil- 
dren, some require considerable help and several startings before 
they understand what is to be done. All of this is to be reported 
in the first trial notes. It was shown in table I that fourth and 
fifth trials usually differ little from the third trial, so even if con- 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 35 

siderable practice is allowed in this so-called first trial, it will 
make little difference. 

Correlation of Time Records With Age 
This rambling search for a method of treating the data, and 
the consequent adoption of a new method of conducting the test 
came of course, after the data from the 500 selected children has 
been taken. All of the tests had been given in exactly the same 
way and under the strict requirements laid down at the beginning. 
While it is to be regretted that the data were not taken with an 
uninstructed first trial, as in the method finally adopted, it makes 
absolutely no difference in the following results and conclusions 
which are limited to variability of time records with age and 
sex. The averages may be slightly lower than they would have 
been by the new method, but excepting the coefficient of corre- 
lation, every result is shown clearly by the curve for each 
of the four standards that have been considered. The conclusions 
are drawn from the direction of the curves and not from their 
heights, so they apply to the new method whose curve (See chart 
IV, page 49) differs from that of the shortest of three trials much 
less than those of the other three standards do. With an unin- 
structed first trial the errors might not have been exactly the 
same, but for the purposes for which the records are here used 
the difference is negligible. 

The general direction of the curves in chart I shows a negative 
correlation between age and the time required for placing the 
blocks. The coefficient of correlation for the shortest of three 
trials standard calculated by Pearson's products-moments method 
is 0.384. Considering the bold curve taken by the line of aver- 
ages, this is not a low correlation. If the records for the five 
year old group are not included the coefficient is 0.465. 

Age Variations 

In studying the age variations it is advantageous to consider 

simultaneously charts I, II, and III. The first two have been 

mentioned. Chart III shows the average numbers of errors made 

by children of each age. According to charts I and II many five 



36 



REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 




n 



7 ^ i 10 II 
/! fa j'n yea ts 



IS /f 



Chart III. — Average number of errors in three trials. 

year old children require a long time for placing the blocks, both 
the average time and the variability being very high as compared 
with the other age groups, but chart III shows that in the num- 
ber of errors the five year old group is comparatively not so high. 
These facts are easily understood by anyone who has watched 
five year olds working at the test. They move slowly in handling 
the blocks and cannot be made to hurry, working so deliberately 
that were their form perception as keen as is that of older chil- 
dren, they would make no errors. The number of errors made is 
therefore relatively low as compared with the curve of the time 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 37 

records. A few of them hurry, this fact partly accounting for 
the wide range of the time records. The records are evenly dis- 
tributed from these shorter ones to the extremely long ones, 
showing no mode or modes. Fatigue and a waning of interest 
are noticeable in some five year olds, but probably in no other 
age. A few six year olds work slowly and so avoid making so 
many errors. Except for these few children, six year olds are 
much more like seven year olds than they are like five year olds in 
this test. Considerable emphasis is sometimes laid on the effects 
of second dentition on seven year old children.^ Some of the 
curves in these charts are a bit irregular at this age but on the 
whole the seven year olds seem to hold their own with other 
groups. Nine year olds fail to do this, their curves showing de- 
cided irregularities. There is no explanation at hand for these 
erratic tendencies, but it is a common observation by principals 
and teachers that nine year olds are the most puzzling children 
they have to deal with at school. Gilbert's curves show irregu- 
larities at this age.'* Goddard^ and Wallin® have found in sep- 
arate investigations that the Binet tests for nine year olds are 
more uncertain than for any other age. 

It seems that in form perception and motor ability, as they are 
required in this test, there is practically no gain after a point 
somewhere about the age of twelve. The better records made 
above that age are due to planning and to more determined effort. 
In these charts we find that at ages thirteen and fourteen the 
blocks were placed more quickly than at twelve, the standard de- 
viations were lower, but the number of errors was greater. To 
those who have observed the testing of these older children it is 
evident that hurrying is the cause of the errors. In order to 
place the blocks in less than twelve or fourteen seconds, the child 
has to handle them so rapidly that there is not time enough to 

* Chamberlain, The Child, p. 70 and ff. Gilbert, Yale Psychological Labora- 
tory Studies, II, 93, and preceding tables and charts. 

* Ibid. 

■ Reported in public addresses. 

* Reported before American Psychological Association, Dec, 1911. 



38 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

perceive the block's form and then to compare its image accurately 
with the recess forms. Eye movement, mental processes, and 
hand movements must go on simultaneously and very rapidly, and 
it is necessary to take a chance that the first impression of the 
shape of a form is correct. So these errors are not caused by 
inability to perceive form, but by a blurred and incomplete per- 
ception due to the rapidity of the work. Yet this gives the same 
result as inability to perceive form, for these older boys and girls 
confuse most often the same forms that the slow working young 
children do. Table XIV shows that for all ages the 0-4 error is 
by far the most frequent; for both five year olds and fourteen 
year olds about 12% of the errors being of this one kind. 

The practical conclusion to be drawn from these studies of the 
age variations is that the time required for placing the blocks 
varies with age of children : that excepting five year olds, averages 
or modes of records for each age should be quite reliable as stand- 
ards with which to compare individual records. 

Sex Differences 

Sex differences are of no importance in the form board test. 
The average of time records for boys are slightly below that for 
girls, the two being 17.8 and 18.2 respectively. Boys, especially 
the older ones, enter into a "Ready — Go" test more energetically 
than do girls, but the extra errors that they make because of hur- 
rying partially sets them back. So their average gain in time, 
as shown above, is only 0.4 seconds. This gain is not evenly 
distributed by ages. The fact that at ages eleven and twelve, 
girls make the better records and at thirteen and fourteen the 
boys excel is probably due to changes connected with puberty.'^ 
However that may be, there can be no doubt as to the effect of 
the greater hurrying so noticeable in older boys. It is clearly 
shown in the shortness of their time records at ages thirteen and 
fourteen in chart I, and in the large number of errors made at 
those ages as shown in chart III. S^tandard deviation charts for 

'Burnham. Ped. Sem. I, i8r ; Bryan. Am. Jour, of Psych. V, 173; Gilbert, 
cited above. 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 



39 



the two sexes are not given because no sex differences are ap- 
parent in them. 

Kinds of Errors 

The number of times that each kind of error was made is 
shown in table XIII which gives for the 500 selected chil- 













Recesses 














I 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 





Total 


I 




I 




41 


22 


I 


I 


32 




4 


102 


2 


7 




4 


18 


9 


4 


7 


5 


4 


2,2 


90 


3 




5 




2 


2 


5 


7 


3 


40 


15 


79 


"? 4 


17 


2 






28 




3 


8 




44 


102 


-S 5 


16 


3 




24 




2 


6 


24 




4 


79 


S 6 


4 


2 


2 


7 


5 




38 


51 




16 


125 


" 7 


10 


10 


14 


II 


29 


30 




46 




40 


190 


8 


76 


S 




29 


65 


9 


12 




I 


7 


204 


9 




5 


34 


2 




4 


2 


2 




9 


58 





12 


30 


3 


255 


37 


I 


15 


2>2 


b 




391 


Total 


142 


63 


57 


389 


197 


91 


91 


203 


SI 


171 


1491 



Table XIII. — Distribution of the kinds of errors made by the 500 selected 
children. (For further explanation, see corresponding table for backward 
class children, page 20.) 

dren data corresponding to that in table VI (page 20) for the 
backward class children. The most frequent error was that of 
attempting to put block o into recess 4. This error occurred 255 
times. Block o was misplaced more frequently than any other, 
altogether 391 times out of the possible 1500. This is due partly 
to its form and to the diagonal position of its recess, and partly 
to the fact that the recess is often hidden by the right arm of the 
child. The only forms not once confused with each other were 3 
and I, 9 and i, and 9 and 5. Block 9 was the most often placed 
correctly, its record being only 58 misplacings out of the possible 
1500. From these results it is not worth while to attempt to draw 
conclusions as to the relative complexity of the forms, their re- 
semblances, and the effects of the different positions of the re- 
cesses. These matters if worth investigating, would demand an 
elaborate study based on facts of form perception and visual 
illusions which have not yet been worked out. 

One important conclusion is to be drawn from the data as 



40 



REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 



arranged in table XIV, analogous to table VII (page 21). Here 
the twelve most frequent errors as shown in table XIII, are ar- 
ranged according to ages of children. In the upper horizontal line 
are the frequencies of each of these twelve errors made by five 
year olds and in the other horizontal lines they are shown 













Kin 


ds of 


errors 












0-4 


8-1 


8-5 


6-8 


7-8 


4-0 


1-4 


3-9 


7-0 


6-7 


o-S 


9-3 


5 


12 


3 


6 


2 


3 


3 


2 


2 


2 


3 


2 


3 


6 


10 


3 


3 


2 


I 


4 


2 


5 


3 


4 


2 


4 


7 


20 


2 


5 


2 




4 


4 


2 


I 


I 


I 


4 


8 


21 


6 


5 


5 


5 




I 


2 


2 


S 


2 


I 


S 9 


17 


5 


2 


4 


3 


3 


2 


2 


3 


I 


3 


2 


if 10 


14 


7 


4 


6 


4 


2 


I 


I 


2 


2 


3 


I 


16 


II 


4 


3 


3 


3 


3 


2 


3 


I 


3 




12 


21 


5 


3 


2 


5 


3 


2 


2 


5 


2 


I 




13 


15 


4 


I 


3 


4 


I 


5 


6 


I 


I 


2 


I 


14 


13 


4 


3 


2 


I 


2 


3 


5 


3 


2 


2 


I 


Average 


16 


5 


4 


3 


3 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 


2 



Table XIV. — The twelve most frequent kinds of errors of the 500 selected 
children arranged according to ages. (Compare with table VII, page 21.) 

for children of other ages. The most important fact revealed is 
that certain kinds of errors are favored by children of all ages. 
The occurrence of the 0-4 error varies little with age and the 
others are evenly distributed. As has already been stated the 
errors by older children are due chiefly to hurrying. They can 
discriminate these forms with certainty when not hurried, but if 
they get only a glimpse of the block form and have little time 
for imaging it and comparing it with the recess forms, they make 
the same errors as the younger children. The blurred perception 
of the older children and the faulty perception of the younger 
ones give the same results. 

It has been stated by some who use the form board test that 
if a child persists in making the same kind of errors he is lacking 
in learning ability. This seems plausible on the assumption that 
he ought to recognize the situation and not repeat the same errors. 
But it is not borne out by results. On the contrary it is shown 
that bright children as well as dull ones often persist in the same 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 41 

kind of errors and that most of 
the extremely backward show no 
tendency to do so. The follow- 
ing record of a bright nine year 
old boy is a conspicuous case of 
repeating particular errors. In 
this case the two errors 2-8 and 
4-0 were each repeated and they 
might have appeared in all three 

trials had not the order in which , 

20 sec. 23 sec. 19 sec. 

the blocks were piled made it im- 
possible. The number of normal children out of the 50 of each 
age who repeated one or more errors was as follows : 



FIRST 


SECOND 


THIRD 


TRIAL 


TRIAL 


TRIAL 


3 


5 


7 


I 


282 


S 


5 


7 


8 


8 


I 


2 


6 


404 


404 


2802 





6 


9 


9 


3 





3 


I 


7 


8 





4 


6 


9 



Age 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 


Number who repeated errors 


14 


14 


12 


8 


14 


7 


9 


II 


4 


7 



There is a type of defectives who persists to an extreme degree 
in repeating errors or in trying to put every block picked up into 
a certain recess. The records of the 605 backward class children 
show a dozen such individuals, but the great mass of the back- 
ward class children repeated errors less often than did the normal 
children.^ 

Summary 

This study of the 500 selected children may be summarized as 
follows : 

Children vary so widely in their development and advancement 
that in order to reveal their changes in any capacity from year 
to year, a large mass of data would be necessary. The collecting 
of this is impracticable for a test requiring the time that the form 
board does. The difficulty was partly handled by collecting a 
reasonably large amount of data from carefully selected homo- 
geneous groups. 

'No exact comparison is possible. 161 of the 605, as compared with 99 
of the selected 500 normal children repeated errors, but since their total num- 
ber of errors of all kinds was more than twice the number made by the 
normal children the chances for repeating were far more than enough to 
make up for the larger number who did repeat. Also there were 105 more 
individuals in the group. 



42 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

Four possible indices for representing a child's form board 
ability were considered; the time records for the first trial, for 
the third trial, for the shortest of three trials, and for the aver- 
age of three trials. The first trial index was eliminated because 
of its wide and irregular variability. The third trial index 
proved to be unreliable because bright children often fall back 
badly on the third trial through over-hurrying, change of method 
of handling the blocks, or bad luck in fitting them into the re- 
cesses. The shortest of three trials index has the lowest varia- 
bility of the four and is almost as regular by ages as any other, 
so from the statistical point of view it is the most reliable. 
When applied to individual children it failed in many cases to 
agree with the results from careful mental examinations. The 
average of three trials index was next tried. It proved more 
satisfactory in its application to individual cases, evidently be- 
cause it gives weight to the first trial, a feature not embraced 
by the variability criterion. The outcome was a modified method 
of giving the test and of treating the data. Since this new 
method involved a change in the testing procedure it could not be 
applied in every way to the data from the 500 selected children. 
Fortunately the important results from which the data had been 
taken are the same, no matter what standard index is used. The 
following conclusions therefore apply to the new method and to 
all others in which the time element is made the main feature. 

1. There is a negative correlation between age and the time 
required for placing the blocks. 

2. Five year olds show an extremely wide individual varia- 
bility and on the average their time records are comparatively 
long. Because nearly all work so slowly, their number of errors 
is lower than would be expected, judging from the number made 
by other age groups. A few six year olds work slowly like five 
year olds, but the differences between ages five and six are much 
greater than the differences between ages six and seven. There 
are unexplained irregularities in the records of nine year olds. 
After the age of twelve there is practically no gain in form 
board ability except that due to better planning and to greater 



TIME AND ERROR FEATURES 43 

effort. As a result thirteen year olds and fourteen year olds 
make shorter time records but the extra hurrying causes them 
to make more errors than the twelve year olds. 

3. Excepting that for five year olds, averages of time records 
for each age should be quite reliable as standards with which to 
compare individuals. 

4. Sex differences in the form board test are negligible. 

5. The 0-4 error is much the most frequent but there are 
others that are favored. Block o is the most often misplaced and 
block 9 the least often. These facts are equally true for children 
of all ages. 

6. A tendency to repeat certain kinds of errors is not indicative 
of weak mentality unless persisted in to an extreme degree. 



V 
A STANDARDIZATION OF THE FORM BOARD TEST 

There is a general tendency at present to over emphasize men- 
tal tests. Many of the uninitiated expect tests of mentality to 
be as decisive and as reliable as the acid test, and some experi- 
enced examiners are quite dependent on them. They fail to 
realize fully that mind is a function, and that it is the re- 
sultant of a complex of factors which no one test can even 
approximately measuie. Co-ordinated systems of tests such as 
the Binet-Simon cover a number of the factors, but no team of 
tests has as yet been offered which comes near covering all. The 
investigator believes that for a single test the form board is un- 
excelled; that an examiner who is cognizant of the limitations 
of tests and who knows how to articulate their results with his 
judgment based on general observation of the child, will find in 
this test a most valuable and reliable aid. It is from this view- 
point that the following standardization is given. In the preced- 
ing studies conclusions were reached on most of the important 
features of the form board test and a satisfactory method of 
using it and of interpreting its results were worked out. The 
various features of this method have been described only in con- 
nection with the studies through which they were evolved, 
so at the beginning the following complete statement is necessary. 

The Method of Applying the Form Board Test 

The form board lies horizontally on a table, its lower edge 
even with the edge of the table next to which the child stands. 
The table must be low enough to allow him to lean well over the 
board and to look down upon its center. The blocks are placed 
in three piles on the table next to the upper edge of the board, 
no block in the pile nearest its recess, the lozenge and the 
elongated hexagon not in the same layer, and the star in the lower 
layer. This is the arrangement at the beginning of each of 



STANDARDIZATION OF THE FORM BOARD TEST 45 

three trials. The child is introduced to the test with no instruc- 
tion concerning it except, "Let us see how quickly you can put the 
blocks into place." His first reactions and his behavior until he 
succeeds in getting the blocks into place or fails are carefully 
studied. After this first trial he is given any instruction neces- 
sary to make him understand where the blocks belong and that 
he is to replace them as quickly as possible. Then he is given a 
second and a third trial, in which he is encouraged and urged in 
every way to make the best record of which he is capable. These 
last two trials are timed with a stop watch and the shortest of 
the two records is taken as the child's form board index. In 
addition the examiner records an estimate of the child's co-ordi- 
nation and poise ;^ of whether he plans ahead; of whether he 
successfully uses both hands at the same time; and after the 
test is completed he dictates to his assistant his observations of 
individual features. During the testing the assistant has taken 
a complete record of the order in which the blocks were handled. - 
The record of the test then consists of four parts; — (i) An 
account of the first trial. (2) The shorter of the two time records. 
(3) A record of co-ordination, poise, planning ahead, use of the 
hands, and general observations. (4) A record of the handling of 
the blocks. This is not so cumbersome as it looks. All of it is taken 
while the child is at work, except part of the account of the first 
trial and the general notes, and these unless the case is an unusual 
one are stated in a few words. 

The Standardization 

This work was undertaken through the testing of another 
group of public school children. The results from the 500 se- 
lected children reported in the previous section could not be used 
because in those tests careful instruction was given before the 
first trial instead of before the second trial as in the method 
finally adopted. Also, in order to make the group as nearly 
homogeneous as possible, they had been selected according to 

^For meaning of these qualities as used here see p. 19. 
' For method see p. 14. 



46 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

requirements which made them above the average of ordinary- 
children. Therefore new data had to be collected. It was pro- 
posed to test 250 of each of the ten ages, 2500 in all, but this was 
found to be too large an undertaking. Inasmuch as the five, 
thirteen, and fourteen year standards would be of less value than 
the others,^ it was decided to include fewer of these ages and 
to spend the available time on the ages for which the standard- 
ization would be of the most value. In all 1537 children were 
tested. Except that no especially backward or peculiar children 
were included there was no selecting. The results arranged ac- 
cording to the four parts of the records are as follows : 

( 1 ) No attempt was made to standardize the features that are 
to be observed in the first of the three trials. The examiner is 
not limited as to what he shall look for in this part of the test. 
He must have his whole stock of psychological knowledge open 
for apperceiving whatever is brought out, so the features that 
strike him as important may vary widely in different children. 

(2) The age distribution of the time records is shown in 
table XV. Corresponding closely to this is table X, page 29. 
The latter displays a much more restricted distribution because 
the 500 children were selected with the purpose of securing 
homogeneity, but the age variability of the time records is much 
the same in the two tables. Averages of the time records for 
each age, and their limiting zones are given in table XVP and 

^ See pages 8, 36, and 38 for reasons. 

^ In the following table these time averages are compared with those which 
Goddard obtained by a somewhat different method from 250 children. 
(Training School, IX, 51.) 

AGE GODDARd's averages FROM THE 

AVERAGES PRESENT INVESTIGATION 

5 29.5 2,7.^ 

6 27.S 26.S 

7 24.5 23.3 

8 21.8 20.6 

9 19.3 18.6 

10 18.2 16.7 

11 176 14-9 

12 15-9 13-8 





75 


I 






















58 


I 






















57 
























56 


3 






















55 


I 






















54 
























53 


I 






















52 
























51 
























50 


2 






















49 


I 






















48 


I 






















47 


I 






















46 


I 






















45 


2 






















44 


2 






















43 


4 






















42 


5 






















41 


2 


2 




















40 


2 


I 




















39 


3 


I 




















38 


6 


I 


I 
















c 
o 
u 


37 


2 


3 


















36 


I 


I 


I 
















en 


35 


6 


3 


















G 


34 


5 


6 


I 




I 












<D 


33 


3 


3 


3 
















s 


32 


3 


9 




2 














H 


31 




II 


2 


I 


3 














30 


2 


10 


4 


3 


I 














29 


4 


5 


6 


2 


3 














28 


3 


II 


5 


5 


2 














27 


I 


9 


13 


2 


2 


I 












26 


5 


II 


16 


6 


4 


2 












25 


I 


14 


7 


6 


4 














24 


2 


21 


17 


4 


3 


6 


I 










23 


2 


6 


13 


12 


6 


4 




I 








22 


I 


7 


18 


18 


10 


2 


2 










21 




12 


24 


28 


8 


9 


I 


I 








20 




II 


13 


39 


19 


II 


2 


2 








19 




6 


8 


19 


19 


22 


4 


I 








18 




6 


10 


13 


31 


16 


7 


2 








17 






5 


20 


29 


28 


17 


9 


2 


I 




16 






5 


16 


26 


28 


26 


8 


5 


2 




15 






I 


8 


30 


38 


39 


22 


6 


4 




14 








2 


9 


24 


29 


31 


II 


6 




13 










4 


17 


19 


20 


II 


9 




12 












13 


17 


21 


23 


16 




II 














4 


17 


15 


16 




10 














2 


6 


3 


18 




9 














2 




4 


8 






1 5 
1 


6 


7 


8 


9 

Ag 


10 
e. 


II 


12 


13 


14 



Table XV.— Distribution of the time records of the I537 normal children. 



48 



REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 





Number of 


Average 


Zone 


Standard 


Ages 


cases 


time 


limits 


deviation 


5 


8o 


37.6 


22-75 


9.66 


6 


170 


26.5 


18-44 


5-23 


7 


173 


23-3 


15-38 


4.14 


8 


206 


20.5 


14-32 


3-59 


9 


214 


18.7 


13-34 


3.88 


10 


221 


16.7 


12-27 


3.06 


II 


172 


14.9 


9-24 


2.32 


12 


141 


13.8 


10-22 


2.29 


13 


80 


12.6 


9-17 


i.8s 


14 


80 


1 1.6 


9-17 


1.85 



Table XVI. — Time records of the 1537 normal children. 

in chart IV. In the chart the heavy hne represents averages of 
time records and the shaded portion includes the 1537 records. 
For example the average time required for eight year olds to 
place the blocks is shown to be 20.6 seconds, while the shortest 
and the longest records for that age are 14 seconds and 32 sec- 
onds respectively. Table XV shows that in most cases the rec- 
ords are well enough distributed over the zones to make the zone 
widths a rough expression of the variability at each age. In 
chart IV we have a complete standardization of the time fea- 
tures of the form board test. By referring to it one can quickly 
interpret the time record of a child. Unless his record falls out- 
side the zone limits for his age he is to be considered normal in 
this important feature of the test, but of course the nearer it 
comes to the line of averages the better. It would be presuming 
too much to claim that these zones definitely divide the normal 
from the sub-normal, but in order that the line of averages may 
be of the most value the zone width at the different ages must be 
considered with it. For instance it is shown that a seven year 
old child's record may be considerably farther above the Hne of 
averages than could be allowed in a ten year old's record without 
suspecting sub-normality. Attempts to produce a better chart 
than this by displaying the standard deviations instead of the 
distribution limits have failed. It is possible in that way to give 
more regular zone boundaries than are seen in this chart, but 
there is no basis for reducing them to a scale that would satis- 



STANDARDIZATION OF THE FORM BOARD TEST 



49 



factorily represent standard deviations in connection with the 
line of averages. In fact the chart as given comes remarkably 




/fy? //? /ear J. 

Chart W.—THE FORM BOARD TIME CHART. The heavy middle 
line shows the average time record for each age, and the shaded zone is 
limited by the shortest and the longest records for each age. 

near to presenting the standard deviations. It happens that by 
multiplying the standard deviations by 5 they can be compared 



50 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

with the zone widths. This is shown in the accompanying table : 

Age 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 

Width of time zone 53 26 23 18 19 15 13 12 8 8 
5 S. D. 49 26 24 19 18 16 12 12 10 10 

This approximation of an index of variabihty by the zone widths 
adds greatly to their reliability. The two or three serious irregu- 
larities in the zone boundaries are objectionable, but they have 
a value in constantly reminding the user of the chart that records 
falling near the zone limits are of uncertain interpretation. 

(3) To establish standards on poise and co-ordination it would 
be necessary to grade a large number of children who are de- 
fective in these features. Nothing in that direction was at- 
tempted in this study. None of these 1537 normal children were 
seriously lacking in either. Of the 605 backward class children, 
every individual who was given a low grading in one of these 
features proved to have other defects and to be mentally sub- 
normal. Hence the conclusion is to be drawn that serious lack 
in co-ordination or poise indicates mental deficiency. 

Data were taken as to how many of the 1537 children planned 
ahead. The results stated in per cent, of each age group follow : 



Age 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 


Per cent, planning ahead 











4 


9 


10 


16 


26 


50 


54 



Obviously a child should be given considerable credit for planning 
ahead since very few younger normal children and only 8 per cent 
of the backward children do so,^ while about half of the older 
normal ones do. 

A record was also taken of the number who used the two hands 
at the same time successfully. The following statement is in 
per cent, of each age group : 

Age 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 

Percent, using both hands o 8 14 38 45 54 64 88 100 98 

Here again the older children succeed best, but ability to use both 
hands at the same time successfully is not confined to children of 
quite so high advancement as is planning ahead. Nearly all of 

° Table V, page 17. 



STANDARDIZATION OF THE FORM BOARD TEST 



51 



the older children and 26 per cent, of the backward class children 
succeeded in using both hands. ^ 

(4) The record of the handling of the blocks is taken in such 
a form as to need no simplification or reduction to an index. 
The masses of digits display to the best advantage the number 
of errors and the improvement and other variations in the placing 
of the blocks. No standards of the number of errors made by 
normal children of various ages could be established because 
normal children make comparatively few errors and their average 
number shows no consistent correlation with age.'^ Defectives, 
on the contrary, make numerous errors, and for purposes of com- 
parison the following general statement drawn from table XVII 





32 


I 






















21 


I 






















20 
























19 




















> 




18 
























17 
























16 






I 
















Vh 


15 




I 






I 













1-. 


14 




I 






I 














13 




I 




I 














'->-l 


12 


I 




I 




I 















II 






3 






I 










1-1 
4; 


10 


I 


5 




I 














^ 
^ 


9 


2 


3 


I 


I 


2 


I 


I 








3 


8 


I 






4 


I 


2 






2 




"Z 


7 


2 


3 


3 




3 


3 


2 






I 




6 


I 


4 


6 


2 


4 


I 


2 


2 


I 


2 




5 


5 


2 


2 


7 


2 


3 






2 


5 




4 


14 


2 


5 


2 


7 


5 




I 


4 


5 




3 


9 


9 


10 


7 


6 


8 


S 


4 


8 


II 




2 


6 


6 


3 


10 


10 


II 


12 


16 


9 


7 




I 


3 


12 


14 


7 


6 


8 


15 


II 


II 


8 







3 


I 


I 


8 


6 


7 


13 


16 


13 


II 






5 


6 


7 


8 


9 
Age 


10 


II 


12 


13 


14 



Table XVII. — Distribution of the 500 selected children according to the 
number of errors made in three trials. (These results instead of those from 
the 1537 children are used because their age groups have equal numbers of 
individuals, 50 each. This makes them more isuitable for a display of 
frequencies.) 



'Table V, page 17. 
* Chart III, page 36. 



52 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

is of value. Some children of all ages make no errors and the 
majority make less than four in the three trials at the test. A 
few of each age make as high as ten, an occasional one younger 
than ten years makes as many as twenty, while a few five year 
olds make more than twenty. 

It has been worked out in previous studies^ that attempts to 
place the lozenge block in the elongated hexagon recess is by 
far the most common error, and that certain other kinds of er- 
rors, especially those involving the flattened oval, are made quite 
frequently. Extremely backward children find all forms equally 
difficult, making as many errors of one kind as of another. So 
a tendency to favor these common errors is creditable to the 
child, many bright children repeating from one to three errors 
in the three trials,^ but an extreme tendency to repeat an error, 
especially attempts to fit every block into some one recess, indi- 
cates quite low mentality. 

This completes the standardization of the form board test for 
children between five and fourteen years of age. Of the four 
parts of the record, the time index is the most important because 
it is convenient for use in speaking of a child's form board abil- 
ity and because it usually includes what is shown in the others. 
By this is meant that if a child makes many errors or lacks poise 
or is lacking in any other feature, his time record will be accord- 
ingly longer. The occasional cases in which a time index alone 
is misleading make it necessary to record the other features, and 
since this can be easily done it is best to make a full record in 
every case. 

* Pages 21 and 40. 
' Page 41. 



APPENDIX 

CHILDREN UNDER FIVE YEARS OF AGE 

A group of thirty-five four year old children were given the 
form board test, the regular method being used except that the 
child was handed each block and in case he spent considerable 
time trying to fit it into a wrong recess he was told to try 
another. All normal four year olds can place the blocks if given 
that much help. The shortest time record was 20 seconds, the 
longest 91 seconds, and the average 46 seconds. Three of the 
thirty-five made no errors, one made 42, and the average num- 
ber made was 11. Seventeen made their best record on the 
second trial and eighteen on their third. Because they were 
handed the blocks and were not allowed to spend too much time 
trying a wrong recess, the effects of fatigue are not so notice- 
able in the time records, but the majority showed waning of 
interest and fatigue on the last trial. 

Nine children between three and three and a half years of age 
were tested in the same way except that they were given but two 
trials. Their shortest time record was 49 seconds, the longest 
113 seconds, and the average 69 seconds. The number of errors 
varied between 12 and 24, the average being 16. Six of the 
nine did better on the second trial than on the first. 

Seven children between the ages of two years three months 
and two years six months, with considerable help gave time rec- 
ords ranging from 52 seconds to 148 seconds and an average of 
92 seconds. Their errors ranged between 4 and 25 for the two 
trials, with an average of 17. Four did much better on the 
first trial than on the second. All of these children perceived 
the relation of block form to recess form for at least the circle 
and the square. They commonly confused the cross with the 
star, the oval with the semi-circle and the circle, and the triangle, 
the lozenge, and the elongated hexagon with each other. If 
they happened to get the lozenge crosswise over its recess, they 
usually would not turn it without help. They often searched 
in the piles for a block for some particular recess or picked up 
the circle in preference to others. Some tired of the test after 
a trial or two but two cried because they were not allowed to 
continue. 

The test was tried on several children between one and a half 



54 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

and two years of age. The form board was laid on the floor. 
With much help one child placed six blocks and others placed 
two or three. Some showed unmistakeably that they perceived 
the circle form and certain of the other more simple ones. The 
majority piled the blocks one upon another instead of attempting 
to fit them into recesses. At the Philadelphia Infants' Home, 
a form board was left in one of the rooms where a dozen of 
these little tots spent most of the day, and their nurse attempted 
for a week to teach them to put the blocks into place. Some 
made a little progress but all continued to pile them and not one 
learned to complete the test. 

ADULTS 

Adults place the blocks a little more quickly than do fourteen 
year olds. Most of their records fall between 9 and 12 seconds. 
An occasional 8 second record is made, and three individuals out 
of more than a hundred made records of 7 seconds in one of 
their first three trials. Practically all adults plan ahead. The 
most successful handling of the blocks is a rhythmic alternating 
of the two hands, one hand fitting a block while the other is 
picking one from the piles. When one attempts to fit two blocks 
into their recesses simultaneously time is lost, probably because 
of the attempt to divide the attention. 

CHILDREN OF LOW MENTALITY 

There is no kind of reaction to the form board test that is 
strictly typical of any one grade or class of defectives. This 
is partly due to the fact that each of our standard classifications 
has its own basis, such as industrial capacity, linguistic ability 
and educability. Accordingly children may rank quite differ- 
ently under different classification systems, and the form board 
test could not be expected to label individuals directly for their 
place in a mental scale unless such scale had form board ability 
as its basis. ^ For diagnostic purposes it is therefore necessary 
first to compare the individual's form board reaction with the re- 
action of normal children, and then after he has thus been ap- 
proximately placed, to study his reaction in comparison with that 
of other defectives. Hence the importance of normal standards. 

^ Form board time records do not correlate well with Binet Test results, 
children who are considerably retarded according to the Binet scale usually 
being more successful at the form board test than are normal children of 
the corresponding Binet age. 



APPENDIX 55 

All kinds of mental defectives who can do anything with the 
form board were included among the 605 backward class chil- 
dren whose tests are reported in Section III of this monograph. 
But since that study was made before the standards for normal 
children were established, it is worth while to supplement it with 
the following notes on tests of defectives made after the work 
on normal children had been completed. 

Seventy-six imbeciles and idiots ranging in age from nine to 
seventeen were given the form board test, — some in the Psycho- 
logical Clinic of the University of Pennsylvania, some in the 
Pennsylvania Training School for Feeble Minded Children at 
Elwyn, and some in small private schools. As to the time rec- 
ords, the records of errors, and the records of other items that 
are included in the standards given in the last section of this 
monograph, these later observations of defectives seem wherever 
possible to corroborate the conclusions drawn there. They show 
nothing that disagrees with those conclusions. Of the seventy- 
six defectives, forty-two succeeded in putting the blocks into 
place three times, fourteen placed them once but not three times, 
and twenty failed to place all of them even once. Of those who 
placed them one or more times, thirty-three required more than 
30 seconds for the shortest trial. There were several times as 
many errors as would have been made by normal children, and 
there was only an irregular tendency to favor the 0-4 error. 
Very few attempted to use both hands at the same time and but 
nine did so successfully. None planned ahead. A large number 
were lacking in poise ; some being confused by their own efforts 
as well as by the urging and assistance offered by the examiner. 
In some cases the confusion was only temporary, poise being re- 
gained and the work proceeding successfully for a time, but in 
others even after a promising beginning, control was lost and 
the efforts ended in utter confusion. Some of these defectives 
are at an opposite extreme from those who lack poise, being 
abnormally inert and stolid. They work at the form board in a 
listless, indifferent manner, lacking either the inclination or the 
ability to start quickly and to work rapidly. The most of these 
make somewhat better records when urged strenuously. A nor- 
mal child is alert but at the same time has self-control and poise. 
There is no testing device that makes a stronger appeal to the 
interest of children, both normal and defective, than does the 
form board test. It is therefore a good test of attention. Prac- 
tically every child gives it the best attention of which he is capa- 
ble. Twenty-four of the seventy-six defectives gave the test 



S6 REUEL HULL SYLVESTER 

undivided attention as long as the examiner wished them to 
work at it, although some of them worked slowly and made many 
errors. Fourteen gave good attention through one trial but 
wandered from the task before told to stop. Thirty-one showed 
various degrees of flightiness, some attending to the test but a 
few seconds at a time, and others almost completing a trial. 
Some of these returned to it of their own accord, others had to 
be reminded by the examiner. Three of them refused to return 
to it. Seven could not be interested in the test at all, and made 
no effort to place blocks. Fatigue is a factor in the case of 
many who lose interest. 

The emotional reaction of defectives to the form board test 
is extremely interesting. Affectively, only ten of these seventy- 
six reacted like normal children. Seventeen were apathetic, the 
test arousing little or no interest in them. Thirty-three found 
great enjoyment in it, working enthusiastically, some talking 
and chattering while at work and many of them expressing ex- 
treme joy when a block or blocks were placed successfully. It 
was probably the most difficult piece of work that some of them 
had ever done, hence their feeling of triumph and satisfaction in 
succeeding. Some of the more excitable ones would of course 
react in the same way to any test involving activity. The other 
sixteen gave various kinds of curious and inconsistent reactions. 
One large boy started well but before half of the blocks were 
placed he began to weep hysterically and ran away refusing even 
to look backward. Several others wept and wailed, attracted to 
the test but forced to leave it because of embarassment and 
excitement. 

These notes give but a glimpse of what can be observed in 
form board tests of defectives. For instance the attempt to 
group the seventy-six cases on the basis of attention might be 
extended to include an analysis of each individual's volitional 
complex. It would cover not only his power of attention, but also 
his initiative, his self control, and the intensity of his effort. A 
full report would include the painting of a clinical picture of 
each case. How much of this is profitable depends on the indi- 
vidual case and on the extent to which other tests and means of 
analysis are employed. These notes are suggestive of what 
may be worked out from the form board test, and they empha- 
size the fact that norinal standards must be the basis upon 
which each defective's reaction to the form board test is to be 
interpreted. 



